Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 09:45:38 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Libertarian Anticapitalism  (Read 4331 times)
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 09:08:12 PM
 #41

no need for governement action. no need to force any one to anything.

I think Shell would be on your side. Must be tedious to have to inform the government about their accidents. Perhaps that's why they didn't do it right away
I'm sure Shell would love if there weren't anyone out there who could force them to do anything.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904006104576504572754151598.html

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
1480758338
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480758338

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480758338
Reply with quote  #2

1480758338
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480758338
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480758338

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480758338
Reply with quote  #2

1480758338
Report to moderator
Anonymous
Guest

August 21, 2011, 10:09:12 PM
 #42

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 06:55:18 AM
 #43

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Bankrupt? Oh, right, in your world being right, as opposed to being rich, actually helps you in court. Back here in the real world, you just go ahead and try to sue Shell and we'll see how that turns out.
And who owns the north sea in your world? Can I claim it? How do you homestead the sea? Put out buoys? Is it free to pollute as long as there's nobody directly impacted?

Minor? Largest oil spill in the north sea for over 10 years is minor?

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 07:58:25 AM
 #44

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.

kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 08:15:32 AM
 #45

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.
OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them


"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 10:31:41 AM
 #46

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.
OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them



Its interesting that in your best case scenario, there is huge pollution of the oceans as the oil companies own them.  Are you sure that would be a good thing? 

Anyway, how can you sue?  You are a libertarian and have no state, remember?  All you have is voluntary arbitration companies and Shell can choose which it uses.  I'd expect them to use an arbitration company they own themselves and as there is no state, there is nothing you can do about it.


hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 10:49:45 AM
 #47

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.
OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them

Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.

This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 11:18:27 AM
 #48

Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.

This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to derail the thread.
I just don't see how this should work. What about weak corrolations? Let's say that Shell poisons a bit of their sea, but only trace amounts reach your property, however you can see after 15 years that the amount of fish you get is decreasing slowly but steadily? Can you sue? How do you prove that it's their fault?

What if I overfish my sea-property which collapses the fish population, leading to a growth of algae that kills off a lot of fish in your sea-property, can you sue me for that? What if the link isn't that clear cut? Let's say that there are a few steps in between?

And after the damage is irreversible, then what? What good does money do when your property is destroyed for the foreseeable future?

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
Anonymous
Guest

August 22, 2011, 12:02:01 PM
 #49

Organisms have adapted very well to oil contamination. In fact, it has helped several species. One could even consider the oil natural just as human's other effects have been considered a permanent part of the environment. To worry about these minute effects is pedantry in the scheme of things. Three species will always die a day and strains of fish will always deplete. We're not special nor omnipotent. We affect things just as much as any other species and we can only prevent our affects so much without otherwise inhibiting our ability to sustain happily.

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 12:40:03 PM
 #50

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.
OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them

Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.

This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.

Its an interesting thread but you idea of being for free markets but against capitalism is daft.  Its not trolling to point out that the idea is daft.  If a society has any chance of working, you need to control pollution and to ensure safe food.  Your basic concept fails to do either and while everyone is free to believe anything they choose, everyone is also free to point out that a daft idea is, well, daft.

Anonymous
Guest

August 22, 2011, 01:11:40 PM
 #51

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.
OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them

Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.

This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.

Its an interesting thread but you idea of being for free markets but against capitalism is daft.  Its not trolling to point out that the idea is daft.  If a society has any chance of working, you need to control pollution and to ensure safe food.  Your basic concept fails to do either and while everyone is free to believe anything they choose, everyone is also free to point out that a daft idea is, well, daft.
Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.



AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 02:06:13 PM
 #52



As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.



HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH

So then no one can own property!  The entire world is interconnected and what happens on each little piece of it affects all others to greater or lesser extents.

You'll learn about externalities someday when you're older.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:00:06 PM
 #53

...snip...
Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.

[/quote]

Last time I looked there is very little pollution and food poisoning due to retail food is very rare.  So the existing system works fine.  Hugolp wants to replace this with some wishy-washy communal inspection system which will have zero enforcement power.  That cannot work.

I agree with you that the  desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them.  Where we differ is that you believe that if Shell develops a marine resource offshore, Shell owns that area and it free to pollute it.


kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:05:36 PM
 #54

...snip...
Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.


Last time I looked there is very little pollution and food poisoning due to retail food is very rare.  So the existing system works fine.  Hugolp wants to replace this with some wishy-washy communal inspection system which will have zero enforcement power.  That cannot work.

I agree with you that the  desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them.  Where we differ is that you believe that if Shell develops a marine resource offshore, Shell owns that area and it free to pollute it.


[/quote]
you have still not justifyed why they need to have enforcement power.
they need no enforcement power. think of it as some sort of rating agency, but for food instead of finacial assets.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:34:31 PM
 #55

...snip...
Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.


Last time I looked there is very little pollution and food poisoning due to retail food is very rare.  So the existing system works fine.  Hugolp wants to replace this with some wishy-washy communal inspection system which will have zero enforcement power.  That cannot work.

I agree with you that the  desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them.  Where we differ is that you believe that if Shell develops a marine resource offshore, Shell owns that area and it free to pollute it.


you have still not justifyed why they need to have enforcement power.
they need no enforcement power. think of it as some sort of rating agency, but for food instead of finacial assets.
[/quote]

I agree kokjo.  Libertarians that move from enforcement to relying on a rating agency type system ignore the fact that rating agencies are easy to corrupt. Because they compete for clients, they can't really slam the clients.

A rating agency type inspection system is sensible if there is an enforcement agency that can sack corrupted rating agents and processes companies that take advantage of the corrupted rating agents.  But that requires a state.

kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:41:09 PM
 #56

...snip...
Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.


Last time I looked there is very little pollution and food poisoning due to retail food is very rare.  So the existing system works fine.  Hugolp wants to replace this with some wishy-washy communal inspection system which will have zero enforcement power.  That cannot work.

I agree with you that the  desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them.  Where we differ is that you believe that if Shell develops a marine resource offshore, Shell owns that area and it free to pollute it.


you have still not justifyed why they need to have enforcement power.
they need no enforcement power. think of it as some sort of rating agency, but for food instead of finacial assets.

I agree kokjo.  Libertarians that move from enforcement to relying on a rating agency type system ignore the fact that rating agencies are easy to corrupt. Because they compete for clients, they can't really slam the clients.

A rating agency type inspection system is sensible if there is an enforcement agency that can sack corrupted rating agents and processes companies that take advantage of the corrupted rating agents.  But that requires a state.
[/quote]
corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:53:50 PM
 #57


corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:56:46 PM
 #58


corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.
i don't listen to them. Smiley im realistic.
people that is wroking with money, are stupid, and often big risk takers. they should be in a casino instead.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 04:06:43 PM
 #59


corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.
i don't listen to them. Smiley im realistic.
people that is wroking with money, are stupid, and often big risk takers. they should be in a casino instead.

The fact that you don't listen to them is irrelevant.  The rest of the world still does and they're still alive and thriving.  That means your theory that people will shun these poor raters en masse and make them go out of business is obviously bunk.  You're going to have to come up with another method to deal with poor or corrupt ratings agencies.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 04:09:58 PM
 #60

If I recall correctly, food was very unsafe in the early industrial revolution, prior to regulation. Why didn't food rating agencies spring up then? Not enough internet? A conspiracy to stop them? Not enough time for the market to adjust? Since the government does an imperfect job of protecting the food supply, do any such rating agencies exist already?

The theory makes perfect sense to me, so now I wonder why it has not already happened.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!